All else being equal, people will change their way of doing things when it becomes more cost-effective for them to do so.

When it becomes cheaper and easier--under natural market forces--to put solar panels on our roofs, we will. And the more people do it, the cheaper it will get. (Oddly, nobody in the environmental movement seems to have any idea what chemicals are involved in solar cell manufacture, but there it is.) When a hybrid car doesn't cost too much more than a gasoline one, people will buy them. When an electric car does the job people need it to do at a reasonable price, people will buy them.

Now, talking about price incentives in front of a social engineer is like waving a steak in front of a hungry dog. They will back up the dump truck full of monkey wrenches and dump them into the marketplace.

Tax gasoline. Tax (insert favorite polluting activity here). Put tax subsidies on solar cells. Make it illegal to have more than one car. Make it illegal to have more than two kids. Make the government buy everyone a windmill. I could continue this list for four pages. Each of these things has been actually proposed.

"Political will" = force. It is no coincidence that the socialists fleeing the political realm gathered in the environmental movement. Almost every solution they propose involves massive centralized government power.

It should be noted that I'm working at a disadvantage here regarding the list you posted since I don't have the original report or the original data. I can see where some of the statements you posted could easily be "cooked," but have no proof without knowing how the statement was arrived at.

One favorite trick is using only "original" or "old growth" forests to measure loss or gain of forest cover, while not counting second growth or managed forests at all. As far as CO2 is concerned, though, there's not much difference. What the heck is the "natural" rate of bird extinctions, and how could it be measured?

Some of these statements are suspicious on their face. 50 percent of wetlands gone? Across the whole planet? Mining consumes 10 percent of the world's energy? I really need to see the source of these numbers.

More people are killed by poverty than by anything else in the world. We need to figure out ways to bring the worldwide population to a higher standard of living without wrecking the planet, and it's going to take technological solutions. The fantasy technologies favored by the environmentalists aren't going to work. People in America can't afford most of them, and we're the ones with the money. How do you incorporate such things into the Third World, where most of the problems are?

People gather in massive slums around Third World cities because even such slums are an order of magnitude improvement over the living hell of a Third World rural subsistence existence. Very few inhabitants have been dragged there by force, or shoved off their land involuntarily. They are there looking for real work in a civilized world.

If the environmentalists are serious about CO2, lets see some support for safe nuclear power, and tell them to sit down and shut up about hydroelectric.

And go ask Rachel Carson about the goddam malaria.